Everyone should pay and earn their fair share; including families, small businesses, large industrials, coops and utilities.

We support the Clean Energy & Jobs clean energy package (HF1395 and HF 1870) and the Department of Commerce bill (HF 1678) which we believe moves us closer to these principles. While we are still evaluating the draft House Energy package, we can provide this feedback now:

We oppose counting existing (if that is the intent of the proposed “energy storage of renewables”) and new hydro over 100 MW in the renewable/advanced energy standard. Existing hydro accounts for approximately 9% of existing electricity generation which would mean a rollback of new renewables built because of the RES. Large hydro from Manitoba has environmental and social justice concernsand should not be incentivized. Minnesota utilities can purchase large hydro if they choose today, but they don’t receive credit under the RES. This is in line with the proposed Clean Power Plan, and would be a bad precedent for Minnesota and the nation.

We oppose eliminating/sunsetting the Conservation Improvement Program, but are willing to participate in conversations around a CIP 2.0 (including third party services, public power authority and/or the energy technology business accelerator.) The stakeholder process should be transparent and not limited as proposed. The Conservation Improvement Program has saved consumers money and avoided new construction of power plants which has been an important hedge for rate increases related to updating our electric system and increasing costs associated with fossil fuel generation.

We oppose the repeal of Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium. Nuclear energy ismore expensive than efficiency, wind and utility solar and provides none of the benefits of these resources or rooftop solar. The cost overruns whichmore than doubled the budget for Xcel’s Monticello uprate are indicative of nuclear projects’ ballooning costs around the country. You can read more aboutour position on nuclear here.

We support continuing to look at opportunities to improve net metering, but the proposed changes in this bill are not fair to customers who own renewables because it does not adequately compensate them for the electricity they provide to the grid which benefits all customers. It is important in addressing the cost concerns of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association that there is evidence provided to help find a solution.

We have concerns with the reallocation of Xcel Energy’s renewable development fund (RDF) away from research grants to incentive programs or the general fund, especially when applied statewide instead of to Xcel customers who contribute to the fund and when used for non-renewable purposes because that goes against the intent of the fund when established. The RDF is based on a payment for the “temporary” storage of nuclear casks and was intended to be used to find alternative, renewable energy solutions to Xcel’s continued reliance on its Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear plants. Will other utilities and their customers be asked to contribute to the funds that are available to them?

We agree some siting and permitting reform is needed, and haveissued a report on our solar permit findings from local government interviews. We support the Department of Commerce recommendations in HF1678 which were vetted by stakeholders, including local governments. We did not participate in this stakeholder process. We have concerns with the potentially overly burdensome siting outlined in this bill.